Costly cup
Sir — Coffee prices are rising steadily across many countries, driven by droughts in Vietnam, poor harvests in Brazil, shipping disruptions and increasing production costs. What was once a relatively inexpensive daily purchase is becoming noticeably costlier for ordinary consumers. At the same time, cafés are increasingly marketing coffee as a premium experience, encouraging customers to pay more for specialised drinks and personalised service. The result is a striking contrast: a global commodity facing supply pressures while demand remains remarkably resilient.
Shreya Basu,
Nainital
Change the game
Sir — Mukul Kesavan raises a valid concern about the growing imbalance between bat and ball in the Indian Premier League (“Vaibhav unwatched”, May 31). Scores that once seemed imposing are now regularly chased down with ease. Cricket is most engaging when both disciplines have a fair chance to influence the result. Constant six-hitting may entertain spectators initially but excessive dominance by batters can make contests predictable. The success of young talents such as Vaibhav Suryavanshi is exciting but the sport should preserve competitive balance to ensure that skill and strategy remain central.
Indranil Sanyal,
Calcutta
Sir — The distinction that Mukul Kesavan draws between Test batters and Twenty20 hitters helps explain why many traditional cricket followers struggle to connect with the shortest format. Test cricket rewards patience, judgement and technique, while T20 often rewards aggression from the first ball. Neither approach is inherently superior. They simply demand different skills. Recognising this difference allows appreciation of players such as Vaibhav Suryavanshi on their own terms rather than through constant comparison with longer forms of the game. That perspective enriches discussion about modern cricket.
Altaf Sheikh,
Mumbai
Sir — The piece by Mukul Kesavan deserves credit for highlighting the role of the IPL in identifying and promoting young talent. Previous generations saw accomplished domestic cricketers miss international recognition because opportunities were limited. Today, gifted players can display their abilities before a global audience at a young age. Vaibhav Suryavanshi’s rapid rise illustrates this change. The league has created pathways that did not previously exist. That contribution should be acknowledged even by those who remain critical of certain aspects of T20 cricket.
Rohen Bose,
Calcutta
Sir — Sachin Tendulkar’s suggestion to remove the Impact Player rule addresses a genuine concern. The rule has strengthened batting line-ups and increased pressure on bowlers who already operate under restrictive conditions. Cricket benefits when every player contributes in multiple disciplines rather than when teams can effectively field an extra specialist batter. Removing the rule could restore greater balance and place renewed emphasis on all-round ability. The IPL has thrived through innovation, but not every innovation necessarily improves the sport.
M.H. Adil,
Mumbai
Sir — The Little Master’s proposal to allow one bowler to deliver five overs instead of four merits serious consideration. Teams often possess a standout bowler capable of changing a match. Spectators enjoy watching the best players compete, regardless of whether they bat or bowl. Extending the workload of a leading bowler by one over could create additional tactical intrigue and help counter the dominance of powerful batting line-ups. It represents a measured reform rather than a radical departure.
Anupam Neogi,
Calcutta
Joint credit
Sir — The anxiety surrounding Artificial Intelligence and writing often overlooks an important historical reality (“Seeds of doubt”, May 29). Long before AI entered public life, politicians, celebrities, business leaders and even some authors relied on ghostwriters to produce speeches, memoirs, articles and books. Readers rarely questioned the authenticity of those works despite knowing that another hand shaped the prose. AI is, in many ways, performing a similar function by assisting with drafting and expression. The real issue is transparency. Literature should continue to be judged by its ideas, emotional depth and originality rather than by endless speculation about authorship.
Yashodhara Sen,
Calcutta
Sir — The debate triggered by the Commonwealth Prize controversy shows that AI is no longer a distant threat to literature. Many writers fear that AI will reduce authors to mere prompt-givers while machines generate polished prose. Yet resisting technological change has rarely succeeded. The wiser course is adaptation with ethical safeguards. AI can imitate style, but originality, lived experience and emotional depth still belong to human beings. Writers must evolve from solitary creators into discerning curators of thought.
Harsh Pawaria,
Rohtak, Haryana
